With Loretta Lynch set to testify before a congressional committee today about her tarmac powwow with Bill Clinton, you may recall last week’s hearing: representatives questioned FBI Director James Comey’s reasoning behind his decision allowing Clinton to skate on that server thing, even after laying out a case supporting prosecution. Several oddities arose during the hearing, including the revelation that Clinton wasn’t questioned under oath, nor were her answers recorded. But as Comey reminded us, lying to the FBI is still illegal, leaving many of us scratching our heads wondering why the agency didn’t require the oath, given he laid bare her penchant for lying, proving her word is worth about as much as today’s British pound. But there was another curiosity during the hearing: the fact that during its investigation the FBI didn’t review Hillary’s under-oath congressional Benghazi testimony to determine whether it matched-up with her answers to their inquiries. Here’s the pertinent exchange:

.@jasoninthehouse: Did FBI review statements @HillaryClinton made about emails under oath? https://t.co/YkPMdsoEmE pic.twitter.com/pyQid15rR0

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 7, 2016

Now, Director Comey has assured us that Queen Hills did not lie to the FBI. It’s unclear how he knows this, but given he admitted he’s fully aware of her congressional testimony last fall, we can infer she told his agents something else. Something that jived with information she likely knows they have in their possession? Even something, perhaps, that she tried to scrub from her server via the help of a Fifth-Amendment invoking IT staffer? Here’s Rep. Jim Jordan questioning Hillary. Note that Comey dismantled her prior testimony during his presser last week:

Oopsie. Pantsuit on fire.

So, as promised during Comey’s hearing, Jason Chaffetz and Company have sent a formal request to the FBI requesting it investigate whether or not Hillary Clinton committed perjury:

Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, formally requested the probe Monday, claiming in a letter that FBI evidence “appears to directly contradict” statements made by the presumptive Democratic nominee.

“The evidence collected by the FBI during its investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email system appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony,” the request reads. “In light of those contradictions, the Department should investigate and determine whether to prosecute Secretary Clinton for violating statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements to Congress, or any other relevant statutes.”

And lying (not to mention destroying emails), in my humble opinion, shows consciousness of guilt, and therefore, intent. Something Director Comey said he just couldn’t seem to find. Here’s the formal request (not that Comey needs it, mind you; he could easily have compared the two versions of HillarySpeak himself):

BREAKING: @jasoninthehouse, @RepGoodlatte Request Perjury Investigation of Hillary Clinton https://t.co/QVuDgv21YO pic.twitter.com/2eESPpQDzG

— Oversight Committee (@GOPoversight) July 11, 2016

Of course the tired old right-wing-conspiracy claims belching from the Hillary Camp arrived right on cue:

This is another futile, partisan attempt to keep this issue alive now that the Justice Dept has declared it resolved https://t.co/B75bb8TUv6

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 11, 2016

By the way, what’s the going price of selling your soul to the Clintons these days…?

So where is all this leading? Well, remember this guy? His name is Roger Clemons:

…and what happened to him following his own testimony before Congress regarding steroid use in the sports world? Not much:

…one of the highest profile cases in recent years ended in acquittal: legendary baseball player Roger Clemens was charged with lying to Congress in 2008 about his use of performance-enhancing drugs, but he was acquitted of all charges.

And the number of convictions for those accused of perjury are pretty stark:

Almost no one is prosecuted for lying to Congress; in fact, only six people have been convicted of perjury or related charges in relation to Congress in the last sixty years. There are two possible causes for such a result: either almost all – far above 99% – of those who testify to Congress do so truthfully or Congress and prosecutors rarely successfully prosecute the crime of lying to Congress. Logic and history indicate the latter.

@GOPoversight @jasoninthehouse @RepGoodlatte Bill Clinton also committed perjury, was impeached. Meant bupkus.

— Cruz 2020 #ImWithHer (@jpwilloughby) July 11, 2016

Precisely. I guess that whole oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothin’ but…really means nothing. Given that deception is firmly rooted into the fabric of D.C., raising your right hand and then lying is the norm. And this is Hillary Clinton we’re talking about, Queen of the Fast Pitches, and I don’t think for one moment that even though she did lie under oath, that anything will come of it. Her coronation’s been in the works for years and nothing, not even endangering national security and hiding from us whatever it was she was doing under cover of her private server, will snag her in its net. The Clintons are one of the most powerful political dynasties in the world, and nothing—not the FBI, not the DOJ, and certainly not perjury—will keep her from what she believes she’s owed. And that is the new America in which we live under one of the most corrupt, lawless administrations in the history of our great nation. We can only hope that a majority of voters care that she’s a heartless, morally bankrupt miscreant, and opt not to send her back to our White House for Blue Dress Party Part Deux.